User talk:NE Ent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Nobody Ent)
Jump to: navigation, search

Last word: Davidwr (talk).

My RfA- formatting?[edit]

Hi NEEnt, and thanks for your support. Just popping by to note that you didn't bold your !vote on my RfA. Does that matter for the bot that counts these? Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. That'd be bureaucratically stupid. But I've typed six ' for you. NE Ent 02:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I never know what the bots do, Saw that I'm getting some criticism for my AfD stats, but notice that the bot for that one doesn't track the stuff that's "similar but not identical". Which I suppose everyone at AfD has to deal with, but it makes it tough where there is no clear scale. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Naw, !votes without a bolded word are counted properly regardless. What matters is that the numbered indentation remains intact: any properly indented comment in either s/n/o section is counted. Sometimes you'll even see joking "Oppose" comments in the Support section being properly counted as "support". :)  · Salvidrim! ·  22:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Second formatting question, unrelated to bots-n-boldface: were you replying to me, or just commenting generally and happened to be below me? Aka did you mean ** instead of * in front of this comment,[1] is my question.

  I ask, because although my bangbangvote was 'support' of Montanabw (not 'oppose'), that choice was because I believe her pledge to stay cool as an admin, not because I think that "interaction with, and posting on the talk page of, any other Wikipedian" has no relevance to an RfA. Such interactions are the key evidence about whether the person understands WP:NICE the way I do, or at least, the way I think admins ought to, and thus interaction is a valid metric to gauge whether the candidate has the requisite understanding of the pillar in question.

  Sure, we only have a civility meme, not a civility policy, there is little enforcement generally and often ridiculously slanted enforcement when it does happen, and just as you say, that is not Montanabw's fault. What *is* on their plate, though, is their own interactions with other wikipedians, and whether they meet my personal standards for civility, which is to say, whether they meet my personal threshold for civility-as-an-admin. You seem to be arguing that, civility ought to have no bearing, since the civility-policy is so busted; I hear you, and wish we had a clearcut policy, but I disagree that civility of interactions has *no* bearing (despite the broken wiki-policy state ... or even, *especially* because the wiki-policy is so busted, how wikipedians engage with other wikipedians when they *know* enforcement is lax and uneven, is a vital factor).

p.s. Grammar bug in your comment == "I urge voters has used this as a basis for opposition to step back..."[2] , prolly should be "has who have" ... unless maybe you like 'whom' .... (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Happened to be below ... had actually been trying to get my thoughts into coherent form a couple days (see Entmoot), and had to write Wikipedia:Civility meme because a red link would have looked stupid. I've clarified exactly what I'm addressing on the page. Note in the original post said "cordial"; I agree entirely that what she posts anywhere is fair game for consideration, but who she's interacting should not be a "black mark," if you will. Fixed grammar bug, thanks. NE Ent 00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. And yeah, definitely agree with the sentiment, that judging her by who she likes-and/or-dislikes would be Very Wrongtm. That said, I do, actually, try to take the interaction-history into account, however... if somebody begins interacting with a beginning editor (does not sign their posts / does not indent with colons / thinks that google hits is the measure of notability / etc) and blows their top at the beginner within a few hours, I give them a bigger black mark, than in the case where somebody has been interacting with another long-haul editor for many years, with various content-disputes or simply rubs-them-the-wrong-way incidents in the past over the years, and there is a blowup over the latest thing. To be clear, both types of blowups get blackmarks, in my book, just different kinds: we need people that can avoid biting the beginners, but we also need people that can get along with the other long-haul wikipedians, even those that rub them the wrong way (with as little clique-behavior as possible). Montanabw can do both, methinks, but will have to practice de-escalation, and staying cooler longer and more consistently. (Aka don't be hasty.)

To do[edit]

  And speaking of being hasty... somebody with a very similar set of numerals to my own, posted their first AN/I thread, and got it closed as poor behavior, by an ent. Ahem.  :-)     So at the risk of finding out the speed at which ents are rumoured to grow angry has changed, I will say, that I really did see that unorthodox move as the best way to de-escalate. Sure, it has now backfired, but at least there is one kind of poor behavior I know not to repeat in the future: never post to AN/I until really ready. I dislike that outcome, obviously, partly because I didn't get the specific advice I was after, but also because I don't really have much hope that the situation on the talkpage in question will de-escalate any time soon. I will try not to let it grow worse, but I think this is one of those articles where fundamental disagreements about What Should Be In The Encyclopedia start to rub people wrong. I've just arrived there, and my own self-botched AN/I thread was the first noticeboard-dramah of 2015. But there was plenty of dramah in 2014, including a 'voluntary' mainspace-only-t-ban, and a quasi-related desysop. The contents of mainspace never reached broad consensus, which is to say *outside* the local article-talkpage consensus; thus, the article just became a DMZ-article, waiting for somebody to stumble into it. Moi, apparently.
  Do you have any ent-wisdom to offer, about how I ought to have gone about trying to improve the situation (aka alternative moves I could have made besides posting to AN/I at all), or about what I ought to try going forward? If not (or if it will take some ruminating-time) that is okay. Generic advice, like "follow the pillars" is also fine as far as it goes, but everybody there thinks they *are* following the pillars. So, I specifically came to AN/I, rather than going to some admin that I already happened to know, because I wanted to avoid the appearance of pulling in "my clique" to help me "win" the wiki-battle. And of course, immediately got accused that my AN/I post was attempting to "win" the content-dispute. Sigh.  :-)     Anyways, if you don't wanna mess with this situation, no hard feelings whatsoever, I'm sure it will all work out in the long run. Best, (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If you can provide a link to the AN/I post I'll review it when I get a chance (we may be talking a week or so). NE Ent 11:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NORUSH aka WP:DoNotBeHasty. Here is your close.[3] Here is the brief archived thread, though I don't think it is very helpful for you to see it again, since you already saw it, and closed it as poor behavior.  :-)     My question is, since posting to AN/I was the wrong move, what would have been the right move, or at least, a not-poor move? Taking the specific source-question to RSN? Taking the specific BLP-question to BLPN? Just start going source-by-source, and adding one sentence per source to mainspace, to see what gets reverted, and what does not? There are too many people involved for 3o, and not enough people involved for arbcom, thankfully.  :-)     My other option, that I did seriously consider, was nominating for AfD#3, but that seems a bit pointy, since there are so many sources at the moment. The usual way to attract attention is to mark the article as a stub, and advertise it at the appropriate wikiprojects, but that's also been attempted (albeit not by me). I could open an RfC up, as the next phase; WP:DR would be logical, in theory, but it only works if there is a possibility of compromise.[4] There's already been plenty of talkpage discussion, and I don't expect longer and deeper discussion will help, though possibly metronome-edits to mainspace would help. I'm planning on checking some other encyclopedia, spaketh not their vile names here on-wiki o'course, to see if they have child prodigy articles, and if so what depth. (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA question[edit]

NE Ent, is anyone actually "in charge" of the RfA process? Something totally bizarre has happened at my RfA that may raise RL concerns, and I believe that I may need to privately forward some emails to the powers that be. Who is to be contacted? Montanabw(talk) 01:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

privacy real life stuff goes to arbcom. Email them. Or maybe wmf? NE Ent 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's about this (and link there to main page). Your thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken[edit]

I note your point here ([5]) and it is a valid one. Constant civility and requests for group discussion seem to be the best way of wearing down belligerence. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Just an FYI, if anyone asks, I'm leaving an early closing summary at the RfA. It is NOT a withdrawal, just real busy IRL tomorrow. I can't express enough thanks to all of you for the hand-holding, thoughful insights and peeling me off the ceiling. We all knew this one was not real likely to succeed, but I'm hoping I did well enough to set up for a second round sometime next spring. Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NE Ent. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived[edit]

Hi NE Ent, the Discretionary sanctions arbitration amendment request, which you filed, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions (September 2015). Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for [6] but that wasn't really what I was looking for (and it was already self-evident by the indent level). Since Mkdw wasn't clearly in opposition to the alternative proposal (and if he was, it's unclear if he was opposed to the proposal in its entirety, if he was opposed in part, or to the existence of WP:IAR), your opposition is still unclear. Since neither of us can read Mkdw's mind, and since Mkdw's statement is probably as unclear to other editors with respect to any opposition to the alternative proposal (remember - he was addressing Guy Macon, so he probably didn't see a need to be crystal-clear in any comments he was making with respect to the alternative proposal itself), please spell out what your opposition is so we all know what issue or issues need to be addressed. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the further update. It's still not clear if you are opposing the alternative proposal or not, but I'll stop pestering you about it. Just know that if it's unclear to one experienced editor (namely me), it's probably unclear to at least a few other editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)